[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Khayyam (May 1050 - Dec 1122) was a famous Persian poet as well as a mathematician, Scientist,Astronomer and Philosopher . The father of Algebra was an outstanding mathematician and astronomer. His work on algebra was known throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, and he also contributed to calendar reform. Khayyam measured the length of the year as 365.24219858156 days. Two comments on this result. Firstly it shows an incredible confidence to attempt to give the result to this degree of accuracy. We know now that the length of the years is changing in the sixth decimal place over a person's lifetime. Secondly it is outstandingly accurate. For comparison the length of the year at the end of the 19th century was 365.242196 days, while today it is 365.242190 days. Khayyam poems are targeting all forms of fanaticism and today we should consider him as father of battle against fanaticism . Omar Khayyam is father of Agnostic thought process of Persia.

The Miniature painting is by Iran's Celebrated Artist the late Hossein Behzad who selected topics for painting from the Khayyam poem. Today many Iranians are follower of Khayyam.

Today all Iranians deeply understand and appreciate the meaning of the following Poem by our great brilliant scientist and scholar Khayyam who told us 1000 years ago but we (Persians) have not listened and fallen into the Islamist Mullah Khomeini and European Neo-Colonialists traps in recent years, now the new Iranian generation must fight hard for the regime change, freedom and correct their path for future generation before it becomes too late. The Iranian people must send the Islamist clerics and their supporters, these cancer tumors of the Iranian society to the dustbin of history by any means and establish the true free society, and secular democracy.
The Iranian people will not see progress, security, peace, happiness and innovations unless they change this corrupt Islamist Regime and replace it with the free society, and secular democracy.

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Since you deny `God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to conduct?
An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'.

How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic consider a sin?
The Agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation.

As for `sin', he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept Hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of `sin'.

Does an agnostic do whatever he pleases?

In one sense, no; in another sense, everyone does whatever he pleases. Suppose, for example, you hate someone so much that you would like to murder him. Why do you not do so? You may reply: "Because religion tells me that murder is a sin." But as a statistical fact, agnostics are not more prone to murder than other people, in fact, rather less so. They have the same motives for abstaining from murder as other people have. Far and away the most powerful of these motives is the fear of punishment. In lawless conditions, such as a gold rush, all sorts of people will commit crimes, although in ordinary circumstances they would have been law-abiding. There is not only actual legal punishment; there is the discomfort of dreading discovery, and the loneliness of knowing that, to avoid being hated, you must wear a mask with even your closest intimates. And there is also what may be called "conscience": If you ever contemplated a murder, you would dread the horrible memory of your victim's last moments or lifeless corpse. All this, it is true, depends upon your living in a law-abiding community, but there are abundant secular reasons for creating and preserving such a community.

I said that there is another sense in which every man does as he pleases. No one but a fool indulges every impulse, but what holds a desire in check is always some other desire. A man's anti-social wishes may be restrained by a wish to please God, but they may also be restrained by a wish to please his friends, or to win the respect of his community, or to be able to contemplate himself without disgust. But if he has no such wishes, the mere abstract concepts of morality will not keep him straight.

How does an agnostic regard the Bible?

An agnostic regards the Bible exactly as enlightened clerics regard it. He does not think that it is divinely inspired; he thinks its early history legendary, and no more exactly true than that in Homer; he thinks its moral teaching sometimes good, but sometimes very bad. For example: Samuel ordered Saul, in a war, to kill not only every man, woman, and child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle. Saul, however, let the sheep and the cattle live, and for this we are told to condemn him. I have never been able to admire Elisha for cursing the children who laughed at him, or to believe (what the Bible asserts) that a benevolent Deity would send two she-bears to kill the children.

How does an agnostic regard Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity?

Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that Jesus was God. Most agnostics admire the life and moral teachings of Jesus as told in the Gospels, but not necessarily more than those of certain other men. Some would place him on a level with Buddha, some with Socrates and some with Abraham Lincoln. Nor do they think that what He said is not open to question, since they do not accept any authority as absolute.

They regard the Virgin Birth as a doctrine taken over from pagan mythology, where such births were not uncommon. (Zoroaster was said to have been born of a virgin; Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess, is called the Holy Virgin.) They cannot give credence to it, or to the doctrine of the Trinity, since neither is possible without belief in God.

Can an agnostic be a Christian?

The word "Christian" has had various different meanings at different times. Throughout most of the centuries since the time of Christ, it has meant a person who believed God and immortality and held that Christ was God. But Unitarians call themselves Christians, although they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and many people nowadays use the word "God" in a much less precise sense than that which it used to bear. Many people who say they believe in God no longer mean a person, or a trinity of persons, but only a vague tendency or power or purpose immanent in evolution. Others, going still further, mean by "Christianity" merely a system of ethics which, since they are ignorant of history, they imagine to be characteristic of Christians only.

When, in a recent book, I said that what the world needs is "love, Christian love, or compassion," many people thought this showed some changes in my views, although in fact, I might have said the same thing at any time. If you mean by a "Christian" a man who loves his neighbor, who has wide sympathy with suffering, and who ardently desires a world freed from the cruelties and abominations which at present disfigure it, then, certainly, you will be justified in calling me a Christian. And, in this sense, I think you will find more "Christians" among agnostics than among the orthodox. But, for my part, I cannot accept such a definition. Apart from other objections to it, it seems rude to Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, and other non-Christians, who, so far as history shows, have been at least as apt as Christians to practice the virtues which some modern Christians arrogantly claim as distinctive of their own religion.

I think also that all who called themselves Christians in an earlier time, and a great majority of those who do so at the present day, would consider that belief in God and immortality is essential to a Christian. On these grounds, I should not call myself a Christian, and I should say that an agnostic cannot be a Christian. But, if the word "Christianity" comes to be generally used to mean merely a kind of morality, then it will certainly be possible for an agnostic to be a Christian.

Does an agnostic deny that man has a soul?

This question has no precise meaning unless we are given a definition of the word "soul." I suppose what is meant is, roughly, something nonmaterial which persists throughout a person's life and even, for those who believe in immortality, throughout all future time. If this is what is meant, an agnostic is not likely to believe that man has a soul. But I must hasten to add that this does not mean that an agnostic must be a materialist. Many agnostics (including myself) are quite as doubtful of the body as they are of the soul, but this is a long story taking one into difficult metaphysics. Mind and matter alike, I should say, are only convenient symbols in discourse, not actually existing things.

Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in Heaven or Hell?
The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other. For my part, I do not think there is any good reason to believe that we survive death, but I am open to conviction if adequate evidence should appear.

Heaven and hell are a different matter. Belief in hell is bound up with the belief that the vindictive punishment of sin is a good thing, quite independently of any reformative or deterrent effect that it may have. Hardly an agnostic believes this. As for heaven, there might conceivably someday be evidence of its existence through spiritualism, but most agnostics do not think that there is such evidence, and therefore do not believe in heaven.

Are you never afraid of God's judgment in denying Him?
Most certainly not. I also deny Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma, but this causes me no qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.

How do agnostics explain the beauty and harmony of nature?
I do not understand where this "beauty" and "harmony" are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are either cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent as a punishment for our sins, for it is more prevalent among animals than among humans. I suppose the questioner is thinking of such things as the beauty of the starry heavens. But one should remember that stars every now and again explode and reduce everything in their neighborhood to a vague mist. Beauty, in any case, is subjective and exists only in the eye of the beholder.

How do agnostics explain miracles and other revelations of God's omnipotence?
Agnostics do not think that there is any evidence of "miracles" in the sense of happenings contrary to natural law. We know that faith healing occurs and is in no sense miraculous. At Lourdes, certain diseases can be cured and others cannot. Those that can be cured at Lourdes can probably be cured by any doctor in whom the patient has faith. As for the records of other miracles, such as Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, the agnostic dismisses them as legends and points to the fact that all religions are plentifully supplied with such legends. There is just as much miraculous evidence for the Greek gods in Homer as for the Christian God in the Bible.

There have been base and cruel passions, which religion opposes. If you abandon religious principles, could mankind exist?

The existence of base and cruel passions is undeniable, but I find no evidence in history that religion has opposed these passions. On the contrary, it has sanctified them, and enabled people to indulge them without remorse. Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief. Kindliness and tolerance only prevail in proportion as dogmatic belief decays. In our day, a new dogmatic religion, namely, communism, has arisen. To this, as to other systems of dogma, the agnostic is opposed. The persecuting character of present day communism is exactly like the persecuting character of Christianity in earlier centuries. In so far as Christianity has become less persecuting, this is mainly due to the work of freethinkers who have made dogmatists rather less dogmatic. If they were as dogmatic now as in former times, they would still think it right to burn heretics at the stake. The spirit of tolerance which some modern Christians regard as essentially Christian is, in fact, a product of the temper which allows doubt and is suspicious of absolute certainties. I think that anybody who surveys past history in an impartial manner will be driven to the conclusion that religion has caused more suffering than it has prevented.

What is the meaning of life to the agnostic?

I feel inclined to answer by another question: What is the meaning of `the meaning of life'? I suppose what is intended is some general purpose. I do not think that life in general has any purpose. It just happened. But individual human beings have purposes, and there is nothing in agnosticism to cause them to abandon these purposes. They cannot, of course, be certain of achieving the results at which they aim; but you would think ill of a soldier who refused to fight unless victory was certain. The person who needs religion to bolster up his own purposes is a timorous person, and I cannot think as well of him as of the man who takes his chances, while admitting that defeat is not impossible.

Does not the denial of religion mean the denial of marriage and chastity?
Here again, one must reply by another question: Does the man who asks this question believe that marriage and chastity contribute to earthly happiness here below, or does he think that, while they cause misery here below, they are to be advocated as means of getting to heaven? The man who takes the latter view will no doubt expect agnosticism to lead to a decay of what he calls virtue, but he will have to admit that what he calls virtue is not what ministers to the happiness of the human race while on earth. If, on the other hand, he takes the former view, namely, that there are terrestrial arguments in favor of marriage and chastity, he must also hold that these arguments are such as should appeal to the agnostic. Agnostics, as such, have no distinctive views about sexual morality. But most of them would admit that there are valid arguments against the unbridled indulgence of sexual desires. They would derive these arguments, however, from terrestrial sources and not from supposed divine commands.

Is not faith in reason alone a dangerous creed? Is not reason imperfect and inadequate without spiritual and moral law?
No sensible man, however agnostic, has "faith in reason alone." Reason is concerned with matters of fact, some observed, some inferred. The question whether there is a future life and the question whether there is a God concern matters of fact, and the agnostic will hold that they should be investigated in the same way as the question, "Will there be an eclipse of the moon tomorrow?" But matters of fact alone are not sufficient to determine action, since they do not tell us what ends we ought to pursue. In the realm of ends, we need something other than reason. The agnostic will find his ends in his own heart and not in an external command. Let us take an illustration: Suppose you wish to travel by train from New York to Chicago; you will use reason to discover when the trains run, and a person who though that there was some faculty of insight or intuition enabling him to dispense with the timetable would be thought rather silly. But no timetable will tell him that it is wise, he will have to take account of further matters of fact; but behind all the matters of fact, there will be the ends that he thinks fitting to pursue, and these, for an agnostic as for other men, belong to a realm which is not that of reason, though it should be in no degree contrary to it. The realm I mean is that of emotion and feeling and desire.

Do you regard all religions as forms of superstition or dogma? Which of the existing religions do you most respect, and why?
All the great organized religions that have dominated large populations have involved a greater or less amount of dogma, but "religion" is a word of which the meaning is not very definite. Confucianism, for instance, might be called a religion, although it involves no dogma. And in some forms of liberal Christianity, the element of dogma is reduced to a minimum.

Of the great religions of history, I prefer Buddhism, especially in its earliest forms, because it has had the smallest element of persecution.

Communism like agnosticism opposes religion, are agnostics Communists?
Communism does not oppose religion. It merely opposes the Christian religion, just as Mohammedanism does. Communism, at least in the form advocated by the Soviet Government and the Communist Party, is a new system of dogma of a peculiarly virulent and persecuting sort. Every genuine Agnostic must therefore be opposed to it.

Do agnostics think that science and religion are impossible to reconcile?
The answer turns upon what is meant by `religion'. If it means merely a system of ethics, it can be reconciled with science. If it means a system of dogma, regarded as unquestionably true, it is incompatible with the scientific spirit, which refuses to accept matters of fact without evidence, and also holds that complete certainty is hardly ever impossible.

What kind of evidence could convince you that God exists?
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other evidence of the same sort which might convince me, but so far as I know, no such evidence exists.

Donn Allen, a graduate of Caltech, is a retired electrical engineer living in San Luis Obispo, California. His interest in and deep admiration for Omar Khayyam span approximately 45 years. His library on Omar Khayyam includes the work of over 45 translators of Omar’s rubaiyat into English and extensive related material – analyses, parodies, Omar’s life and times etc. Mr. Allen’s son, Michael, is the author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “The Tao of Surfing: Finding Depth at Low Tide” which is reviewed on this site. He can be contacted at: donn256@surfari.net.

Hakim Omar Khayyam was born at sunrise on Wednesday May 18 in the year 1048 C.E. at Nishapur. As befitting a sage who mastered astronomy and reformed the calendar, it took a detailed analysis of the stellar and planetary positions described in the horoscope cast at his birth to arrive at this information. This analysis was only accomplished in the twentieth century. Prior to this time even the exact year of Omar’s birth remained in doubt. Details of the analysis as well as an astrological life sketch based on this horoscope are presented in “The Nectar of Grace: ‘Omar Khayyam’s Life and Works” by Swami Govinda Tirtha published in Kitabistan, Allahabad, India by the Government Central Press, Hyderabad-Dn. in 1941. This beautiful labor of love is by far the most comprehensive treatment of the life and works of Omar Khayyam that I have ever come across. This unique and valuable resource is little known in the United States and is difficult to locate.

Omar is primarily known in the West today for his poetry; usually Edward FitzGerald’s 1859 presentation (rather than translation) which introduced the Rubaiyat to the English speaking world. However, such was the not at all the case during his lifetime. Not until two centuries after Omar’s death did a few quatrains appear under his name. He was known in his own time as a sage, scholar, Hakim (wise man) who had mastered virtually all branches of knowledge of his time – astronomy, astrology, mathematics, medicine, physics, philosophy, religion, jurisprudence - am I leaving anything out? He was a pioneer of free expression, deplored hypocrisy, most certainly was not a drunkard or libertine, and is reported to have had a truly astounding memory!

Omar’s revision of the calendar in 1079 C.E. to yield the Jalaali calendar (named after Jalaal-ol-Din Malek -shaah-e Saljuqi, the ruler who commissioned the calendar revision and was Omar’s patron) is accurate to one day in 3770 years, which is superior to the Julian calendar, and was only approached by the Gregorian calendar which we use today. The Gregorian calendar is named after Pope Gregory XIII who introduced the latest changes in 1582 C.E., over 500 years after Omar’s work. The Jalaali calender is a very natural solar calendar based on the spring eqinox as the start of the new year (Norooz). If the exact time of the spring equinox event (Saal-Tahveel) occurs before midday Teheran time that day is 1 Farvardin (new year), otherwise the following day is 1 Farvardin and the preceding month of Esfand is extended by one day.

In mathematics, Omar developed means of solving cubic equations (he identified 13 distinct cases) using an ingenious selection of conic sections. He demonstrated cubic equations that have two solutions, but did not seem to realize that a cubic can have three solutions. He discoursed on the significance of Euclid’s controversial 5th postulate (the parallel postulate), although he did not grasp that this postulate can be both true and not true – each assumption leading to a valid (i.e. fully consistent) geometry. Omar also seems to have been the first to develop the binomial theorem and determine the binomial coefficients for the case where the exponent is a positive integer.

Let’s turn our attention now for a moment to physics and the structure of the universe. Time and space and the world they make have engaged the attention of scientists through all ages. Their speculations have brought forth a host of secular sciences. Although a superior scientist, Omar’s philosophical reflections on this subject as reflected in his poetry are neither scientific nor mystical. Again I call upon Tirtha’s work in selecting and translating quatrains attributed to Omar.

Omar calls the Wheel of Time an Imaginary Lantern.

Methinks this Wheel at which we gape and stare,
Is Chinese lantern - like we buy at fair;
The lamp is Sun and paper shade the world,
And we the pictures whirling unaware.

Science fails to solve the mystery of the cosmos.
The Skies rotate, I cannot guess the cause;
And all I feel is grief, which in me gnaws;
Surveying all my life, I find myself
The same unknowing dunce that once I was!

This whirl of time, it simply causes pains,
As for my heart, my evil ways are banes;
Ah! worldly lore that winds in labyrinths,
Ah! wisdom forging newer iron chains.

Time is only a tyrant causing universal change and trouble.

My grief prolongs, I find it nev’r allays,
Your lot is swinging now in higher sways;
Rely ye not on Time, for under veil
A thousand tricks he juggles as he plays.

Ye mount on steeds and brandish steels in fight,
With all your boasts, in trenches soon alight;
The tyrant Time will never spare a life,
He breaks the Dukes by day and Knights by night.

As Spheres are rolling woes alone increase,
They land us just to sink in deeper seas;
If souls unborn would only know our plight,
And how we pine, their coming-in will cease.

Omar is at war with the Sphere and wishes to annihilate it.

Had I but on the skies divine control,
I’d kick this bluish ball beyond the goal;
And forthwith furnish better worlds and times, Where love will cling to every freeman’s soul.

But the final solution is that the tyrant Sphere has no real existence, hence we best avoid all trouble by being content.

Aye hear me please, my old and dearest friend!
Think naught of world - it hath no root or end;
Sit quiet on thy balcony content
To view how Wheel would play its turn-and-bend.

Desire no gain from world, with bliss you trade;
In good or bad of Times you need not wade;
Remain sedate, so that the whirling Wheel –
Would snap itself and blow up days it made.

After a long life filled with accomplishments, honors, and disappointments too, Omar died in Nishapur on Thursday March 23, 1122 C.E. (12 Moharram, 516 AH) at the age of 73. Some references give the year of Omar’s death as 1131 C.E.; however, I’m going to follow Tirtha on this one because I find a depth in his research generally unmatched by others. Omar never married and insofar as we know had no children.

There are many excellent websites featuring Omar’s work and I would like to recommend a few that commend themselves to your further exploration of the life and works of this truly great man. Omar valued continued learning through all of his long life – not a bad example to follow.

Omar Khayyam (general) – herehttp://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
This link works but takes four more steps to get to the biographical article: 1) go to the archive; 2) go to biographies index; 3) go to “K”; and finally 4) click on Khayyam.

He became internationally known and won many awards.
In honor of this artist, the "Behzad Museum", located in Tehran's Sa'd Abad Palace [1] holds the collection of most of his works.
He is not to be confused with another Persian miniature artist Kamaleddin Behzad.Hossein Behzad

Born in 1894, Tehran, Deceased in 1968

He was interested in Painting, when he was child. He was 8, when he started to work, and worked for himself, when he was 20. He married in 1918 with Azizeh and had only a son (Parviz).

1915 : Illustration of Nizami's Book (British Museum)
1918 : Travel to Tiflis to go to Europe to sell Illustrations of Nizami's Book(70 Days)
1935 : Travel to Paris that made an evaluation in his style(13 months)
1936 : Illustration of the Rubayat of Khayyam, which was shown in New York and Washington in 1957
1946 : Employment in Iran Bastan Museum
1948 : Employment in Fine Arts Museum
1946-1954 : Painted "Ferdowsi", "Madaen Arch", "Night of Qadr", "Hafiz"and "Oil" paintings. He had many different paintings during these years and changed the outlook of Persian Miniature.

Awards
1. First class Medal of Ministry of Culture ,1949
2. Diploma for best painting in 15th Painting Olympiad, Helsinki,1952
3. Avicenna Medal of Iran Bastan Museum in honor of Behzad stand in the Millennium & Avicenna
4. Diploma of Honor from the Belgian International Exhibition, 1958
5. First class Medal of International Painting Contest in Miniapolis, USA, 1958, among 230 painters from 97 countries
6. First class Medal of Art from Fine Arts Department
7. Honorary Medal of Art by Faculty of Ornamental Arts in the last year of his life, 1968

Razi wrote three books dealing with religion:
The Prophets' Fraudulent Tricks (مخارق الانبياء)
The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets (حيل المتنبيين)
On the Refutation of Revealed Religions (نقض الادیان).

He offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences.[17][18][19] Razi asserted that "[God] should not set some individuals over others, and there should be between them neither rivalry nor disagreement which would bring them to perdition."[20] He argued,

On what ground do you deem it necessary that God should single out certain individuals [by giving them prophecy], that he should set them up above other people, that he should appoint them to be the people's guides, and make people dependent upon them?[20]

Concerning the link between violence and religion, Razi expressed that God must have known, considering the many disagreements between different religions, that "there would be a universal disaster and they would perish in the mutual hostilities and fighting. Indeed, many people have perished in this way, as we can see."[20]

He was also critical of the lack of interest among religious adherents in the rational analysis of their beliefs, and the violent reaction which takes its place:

If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.[20]

Al-Razi believed that common people had originally been duped into belief by religious authority figures and by the status quo. He believed that these authority figures were able to continually deceive the common people "as a result of [religious people] being long accustomed to their religious denomination, as days passed and it became a habit. Because they were deluded by the beards of the goats, who sit in ranks in their councils, straining their throats in recounting lies, senseless myths and "so-and-so told us in the name of so-and-so..."[20]

He believed that the existence of a large variety of religions was, in itself, evidence that they were all man made, saying, "Jesus claimed that he is the son of God, while Moses claimed that He had no son, and Muhammad claimed that he [Jesus] was created like the rest of humanity."[20] and "Mani and Zoroaster contradicted Moses, Jesus and Muhammad regarding the Eternal One, the coming into being of the world, and the reasons for the [existence] of good and evil."[20] In relation to the Hebrew's God asking of sacrifices, he said that "This sounds like the words of the needy rather than of the Laudable Self-sufficient One."[20]

On the Qur'an, Razi said:

You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?![20]

From the beginning of the human history, all of those who claimed to be prophets were, in his worst assumption, tortuous and devious and with his best assumption had psychological problems.[17][18][19]

Last edited by cyrus on Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:52 am; edited 15 times in total

What kind of evidence could convince you that God exists?
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other evidence of the same sort which might convince me, but so far as I know, no such evidence exists.

If I heard a voice from the sky as mentioned above, I'd still not know this was God. Even if I received proof that there were supernatural beings, I would not know if I were actually talking to God or some lesser entity. There is always the possibility of a being more powerful than the one I'm talking to. So I suppose I'm agnostic to that extent.

For me agnosticism is a powerful tool to help avoid superstition and to hold a true belief in God. Yes, I do believe in God, not because of miracles, but because of His teachings of love. I choose to believe the true God is the one who teaches us to love each other, gives us true freedom, and leads us to a better society. The real evidence of the inspiration of a Holy Book is the fruits one sees in the followers.

Many Iranians seem to have moved from Islam to agnosticism or even atheism which is perfectly understandable. When you have been indoctrinated from childhood that yours is the only true religion and then leaders of that religion commits crimes in the name of the religion, it is only understandable that you would reject all religion. Perhaps that is all which people raised under those circumstances can reasonably do. However, if hostility towards Islam is generalized into a general hatred towards all religion, the Mullahs have won.

One of the earliest buildings if not the very first building which is identifiable with the Islamic religion is the dome of the rock in Israel. It contains clearly anti-Christian material and was built at a site considered holy by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to show the dominance of Islam over Christianity and Judiasm. To a large extent Islam is a religion custom made to defeat and destroy Judiasm and Christianity. It is ironic that militant atheists and agnostics who actively oppose moderate religions such as Christianity and Muslim fundamentalists share the same goal, to destroy the religion of Jesus with it's teachings of love, equality and freedom.

Every religious person should examine their beliefs closely both philosophically, scientifically and morally to be sure their beliefs are intellectually defensible and just. Faith should not be a rejection of reason but should be based on the best understanding possible. However to reject faith, agnosticism, is probably not the answer for most people and I personally question whether agnosticism can sustain a free democratic government over an extended time.

Of the choices -atheism, agnosticism, and theism- atheism probably is the least defensible. Assuming there is no God, it is impossible to disprove God's existence since people can not fully understand the universe. To say you have never seen God is no proof, you have to show God can not exist which is a much more difficult task. Agnosticism is to hold no position on the issue and can never be disproven. Even if an agnostic

Quote:

heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen

as Bertrand Russell stated, that would not prove the existence of God in the ultimate sense. The human mind is as unable to prove the existence of the infinite God as it is to disprove His existence. Ultimately no branch of human knowledge, science or mathematics is completely provable, each one is based on assumptions or axioms which can never be shown correct. An easy almost juvenile way to establish that point is to ask someone any question and then ask them repeatedly how they "know that answer is correct." Within a few steps most people will admit they have no answer.

Unfortunately, agnosticism provides no answers to basic human questions such as where did I come from, why am I here, how should I relate to other people, and what happens after death. If one is agnostic regarding the existence of God but accepts the naturalistic "scientific" explanation for his own existence, then if he is consistent, he will also have to admit there is no basis for kindness or love. The basis of all behavior will be the "survival of the fittest" with the most powerful and the most ruthless prevailing as they have a reproductive advantage and sire more progeny. Why shouldn't the strong enslave and kill the weaker or the meeker? If the Islamists can kill Christian, Hindu and Jewish men and take their wives as sex slaves and use them to have many offspring isn't that survival of the fittest? Isn't kindness and self sacrificing heroism to save another person who is unrelated to you stupid? The "selfish gene" is the ultimate arbitrator of morality.

While theists can not prove the existence of God in the ultimate sense any more than humans can prove mathematics or science, there is evidence of God's existence. The scientific evidence for God have been called the "God of the Gaps" argument by those who oppose God. Science examines repeatable phenomena and deduces laws of nature. By it's very nature science is incapable of proving or disproving God's existence. Yet there is evidence from science which certainly will support faith in those who wish to believe in God.

Although scientists have not and should not given up the quest, they are no closer now than they were in the days of Darwin in answering certain questions.
1. Where did the Universe come from?
2. How did life come into existence? The simplest cells have proven to be so extremely complex so far there is no explanation of how they could have evolved or any indication of the conditions which would have promoted sustained early life.
3. Why are the constants of nature so finely tuned to sustain life? For instance why is water unique and expands rather than contracts when it freezes?
4. What is consciousness? How can I be aware of my own existence; if I even exist at all?

The inability of science to answer all questions does not prove the existence of God, but it certainly makes belief in God reasonable even for a scientific person. History is also a source for choosing a belief in God and deciding which approach to God is best. Since religion so strongly shapes and defines a culture, which culture is one which most people would like to live with? Which one provides the best life to it's people and has the most technological achievements?

Finally as conscious spiritual beings we should not discount the possibility of God's Spirit speaking directly to our spirit. Not all knowledge must come through the external senses. Why can not God lead us through our thoughts and impress upon us the ultimate truth, that "life without love is meaningless?"

Excellent Article. I think interpretation and analysis of Great Persian Masters like Khayyam, Saadi, Hafez and Rumi will deeply enhance our sense of morality and philosphy on life._________________"May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought"

None answered this; but after silence spake
A vessel of a more ungainly make:
“They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
What? Did the hand of the potter shake?”

I believe in atheism, which as Mr. Russell points out, is not far removed from agnosticism. I was born a Moslem, but began examining those beliefs during adolescence. At the time this was a very anxiety-producing struggle for me, as holes were appearing in the “God theory.” What I was always taught as the fundamental truth was looking more like a fairy tail with each passing day.

What shook my beliefs was the irreconcilability of the existence of God with the facts of this world. If logic and common sense are used objectively, God’s existence becomes highly questionable. A few interesting questions, which past philosophers have also struggled with include:

1) Why does evil and calamity exist in our world?
2) Where is God to help us against these evils and calamities?
3) If God wants to help but cannot, is he truly omnipotent?
4) If everything that happens is God’s will, we are bound by fatalism, so can anyone be faulted for their actions, and subsequently punished by God?
5) Why has God chosen to always conveniently conceal himself? At least he should appear once a millennium, to let us know he is still there, instead of “indirectly” reminding us by sending floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes
6) Is God bipolar? Tenderly loving us one minute, and utterly destroying us the next
7) Why were the people who lived before the times of Mohammad, Jesus, and Moses denied the knowledge of the “true God,” and therefore condemned to a pagan life on earth and to Hell afterwards?
8 ) His commandment says "thou shall not kill." Yet it is fine to kill, if it propagates his message?
9) During “Holy Wars,” if God is on “our” side, then who is on “theirs?”
10) Why did he promise the same land (Israel) to at least two different people?
11) Are you ready for this one……..WHO CREATED HIM?

This list is of course, inexhaustible. And these are thoughts that arise without even considering science. I consider myself a scientist. Anyone who is a true scientist accepts only that which is reproducible, and fits the available data and observations. This is the scientific method. Models and theories need to be made to fit the observations, not the other way around. If a theory is or later becomes inconsistent with the data, that theory needs to be abandoned, or at least modified. This is how humanity has struggled to reach the truth. When Einstein’s theory of relativity showed that the long held Newtonian Mechanics were incomplete, and broke down at very high speeds, science was ready to accept the new observations and the improved theory. No one issued a fatwa or a crusade to suppress this heresy.

The bubonic plague of the middle ages, which affected the whole world, but mostly Europe, was actually the great catalyst of science. Since ancient times, people had mostly just accepted everything they were told by their clergy, and faith in God was at a peak. But when they saw everyone dying around them, and the clergy either could offer no help or simply abandoned them in order to save themselves, many people began questioning God. They realized that if they were to avoid such catastrophes, they would have to act on their own, and take charge of their environment and their destiny. The roots of the renaissance and subsequent modern science took hold partly because of this plague.

Of course, science cannot explain everything, and there are some things which it probably will never answer. We understand and accept these limitations. But it is science that gave us our computers, improved farming, put us in space, gave us medicines and surgical techniques, doubled our life expectancy, and allowed us to better understand the world around us. So if you want to pay homage and thank someone, thank science and the scientists, not the imaginary man in the sky.

Now I know that if you keep backtracking a question far enough you will reach the eventual response of “I don’t know.” No one can answer why the laws of nature are what they are. We can only observe their existence, and because of their reproducibility, predict to some certainty how they will result in a future event. From a practical standpoint, that is all we need. The difference between a scientist and a person of faith is that the latter has chosen to distill all these unknowns to one answer: because of God. But the faithful person will eventually get stomped also, if we ask: And where did your God come from? Did another God create him? Or does he simply exist, and always existed, without creation? If you are prepared to accept that answer, why can’t you accept the answer that the Universe has always existed, without anyone’s creation? Both answers are stale, and weak. But I am prepared to say that I do not know the true answers behind the mysteries of the Universe, and probably never will. Are people of faith prepared to say the same regarding the creation of God?

As far as proving the nonexistence of God, well that is close to impossible. I would challenge anyone to prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus or a dragon living at the center of the earth. Proving a negative is impractical, but that doesn’t mean we should conclude that it must therefore exist. Based on logic and science, although we can concede that nothing can be stated with 100% certainty, the chances of the existence of God, Santa Claus, and dragons are infinitely close to 0%.

Some people think that because I am an atheist I have no religion. This is not true. I define religion as a belief system. We all believe in something that we hold dear. For some, it is out of sight, and in the sky. For me, it is more tangible. My religion is my love for my family, love for Iran, love for science, and love of my history.

If I am wrong, I am prepared to go to Hell when I die, just as I am prepared for and accept that my friend the dragon never visits me, and that I never receive gifts from Santa Claus on Christmas. Hmmmmm……., looks like I'm missing out on some goodies.....believing in imaginary things could have its fringe benefits…….. perhaps I should rethink this……

Amir

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
-Dalai Lama

Last edited by AmirN on Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Of course, science cannot explain everything, and there are some things which it probably will never answer. We understand and accept these limitations. But it is science that gave us our computers, improved farming, put us in space, gave us medicines and surgical techniques, doubled our life expectancy, and allowed us to better understand the world around us. So if you want to pay homage and thank someone, thank science and the scientists, not the imaginary man in the sky.

This is probably the strongest argument for science, that it is practical and works. So far as explaining the ultimate mysteries of the universe science has a long way to go. The universe is still as mysterious as ever.

Quote:

As far as proving the nonexistence of God, well that is close to impossible. I would challenge anyone to prove the nonexistence of Santa Claus or a dragon living at the center of the earth. Proving a negative is impractical, but that doesn’t mean we should conclude that it must therefore exist.

Good point. At this time, the existence of God is not provable or disprovable. The lack of proof does not make God's existence either more or less possible. Whether one believes in God is a personal choice. God is not exactly like an Easter bunny however since there is considerable evidence of God's existence.

Quote:

But I am prepared to say that I do not know the true answers behind the mysteries of the Universe, and probably never will. Are people of faith prepared to say the same regarding the creation of God?

Theists who I know all acknowledge that the mysteries of nature are unknown.

Just as the best argument for science is practical since it works, so the best argument for religion is that in the moral realm it works. So far science has not provided a satisfactory answer to the question of what is right or wrong. How I treat you becomes a matter of personal choice for me and what I can get away with.

For example, the Germans were strongly scientific folks who tried to apply science to morality leading to social Darwinism. The reasoning was that since progress in nature is always through the extermination of the less fit we are preventing the upward progress of the human race by kindness to the less fit. The struggle for existence has to continue for further human progress either between individuals in a society or between societies. They opted for both approaches killing members of the German tribes who were considered inferior or were mentally ill. They also believed genocide was a scientifically valid approach which would lead to the improvement of humanity as the "lesser" races were eleminated. Of course they cheated a little since they fully knew the Jews were just as smart or even smarter than themselves. However they had plans to eleminate or enslaving races who they considered inferior as soon as they were finished with the Jews. In fact before the holocaust they had practiced their social darwinism in their African colonies complete with mass murder.

Western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian values. It is practical and it works. Although Western civilization is not perfect, so far I have not seen anything better.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
-Nietzsche

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."
-Nietzsche

"In heaven all the interesting people are missing."
-Nietzsche

"A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions--as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all."
-Nietzsche

"Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?"
-Nietzsche

And I'll end the discussion with one last thought:

"It is nobler to declare oneself wrong than to insist on being right - especially when one is right."
-Nietzsche, from "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"_________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

"God is dead." "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I."
-Nietzsche

This is an excellent collection of statements from Nietzsche. He was brilliant and his works are the ultimate statement of the European Western Skeptics' thoughts and morality which were almost completely embraced by the Nazis. What Western skeptics and scientists only dreamed of, Hitler actually applied in reality. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were Hitler's favorite philosophers and deeply influenced his beliefs and actions and the "crimes" committed by the third Reich.

Although Hitler could never bring himself to completely accept that God was dead, Hitler's God was a pagan god, complete with reincarnation, totally opposed to the weak Christian Jewish God and certainly not one to impose the Jewish morality on anyone. Hitler joined Nietzsche in his hatred pf the equality and egalitarianism which resulted from the Christian God. They both looked forward to the "uberman" or the "superrace" which Darwin had prophesied would appear. Of the two great antiChristian social planners of modern times, to me Hitler was much closer to the scientific ideal than was Carl Marx. Hitler and Nietzsche were brilliant men who reflected the spirit of European skepticism perfectly. The book which I believe captures Hitler's mind the best, even better than "Mein Kampf" is "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944" which captures Hitler in private when he was relaxed, able to express himself freely without worrying about any political fallout and expecting soon to rule the world.

What Nietzsche clearly articulated are the results of rejecting the Jewish Christian God and turning to atheism and paganism. While Nietzsche himself was no scientist, he had good support for his positions from the greatest of the great, Charles Darwin himself. Anyone who wishes to understand the moral implications of Darwinism should read the "Descent of Man." where the ideas of racial extermination and racial hygiene practiced by the Nazis are introduced into Western thought. The leaders of the proto-Nazis who set the intellectual stage for Hitler were the leading men of the biological science, including unfortunately many physicians, whose names are still included in our school books today. While Darwin was a little more politic and actually cast a sop to those who wished to cling to the last dying vestiges of Christian morality, he himself was clearly enough of a realist to realize these things were gone according to his version of science. Based on his ending paragraphs in the book "Descent of Man" I believe he understood and was genuinely grieved by the loss.

These men of science, all believed mankind had arrived at our present stage of development through violence and the extermination of "inferior" races. Throughout the book, Darwin himself called them "savage" races in contrast to the "civilized" races who were destined to rule the world. On page 162-163 in my copy of Darwin's "Descent of Man," final edition, we find the following statement,

Quote:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Darwin and the leading scientists of his day were all certain that the "Negro" or the "Australian" were the lowest races of all mankind and were ultimately destined to be exterminated by the white "Aryan" race or by a race which was even more superior. And yes, Hitler didn't make up this "pseudoscientific" concept of an "Aryan" race, Darwin himself on page 200 of the same book places the infallible scientific stamp of approval on the difference between the "Aryan" race and the Jewish "Semites." The holocaust was simply an attempt by the Germans to ensure they were the superrace to rule the world and not the Jews.

After Darwin, Nietzsche advanced the ideas further along towards their logical conclusion. Anyone who interposed the Jewish Christian "slave" morality between the great men of action and the weak, the slaves, the "unfit" were evil. By contrast what Christians called evil, the mass murders and tyrants the slavers, were actually good. Nature itself decreed that the strongest, the most violent, would rule and the weak and the meek, the loving and the kind would die as they rightfully should to make room for their betters.

Of course Nietzsche didn't really believe "God is dead," only the weak Jewish Christian God was dead. After expending gallons of ink and pages of bile denouncing the Christian God, Nietzsche finally arrived at the perfect religion. Not the watered down tamed version of Islam which some Westerners wish existed, but the wild violent version which killed the men and enslaved their wives, the one which treated women with all the disrespect which weaklings deserved. (Yes, Darwin also taught that women are mentally much inferior to men). In "The Antichrist" page 60 we read

Quote:

"Christianity has cheated us out of the harvest of ancient culture; later it cheated us again, out of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful would of the Moorish culture of Spain, really more closely related to us, more congenial to our senses and tastes than Rome and Greece, was trampled down (I do not say by what kind of feet). Why? Because it owed its origin to noble, to male instincts, because it said Yes to life even with the rare and refined luxuries of Moorish life."

"Later the crusaders fought something before which they might more properly have prostrated themselves in the dust--a culture compared to which even our nineteenth century might well feel very poor, very "late."...That the church should have used German swords, German blood and courage, to wage its war unto death against everything noble on earth!...Really there should not be any choice between Islam and Christianity, any more than between an Arab and a Jew..." War to the knife against Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam"-- Thus felt, thus acted the great free spirit, the genius among German emperors, Frederick II. How? Must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, to have decent feelings? I do not understand how a German could ever have Christian feelings"

France is burning and Western Civilization in Europe is dying. Soon the Jewish Christian religion, with it's championship of human rights, the equality of all men, and it's attempts to free and liberate the slaves will fade into history. The true heroes will resume control, the "male" instincts will replace the weak "feminized" society and true "he" men will once again rule in despotic glory and replace the tyranny of the inferior, the majority. So the intellegencia and the scientist have declared is the will of nature. Since they are never wrong, so it shall be.

It is a well known fact that the Nazis tried to distort and pervert Nietzsche’s works to advance their propaganda machine. It is also a well known fact that Nietzsche did not hold to any principles of Nazi ideology. After his death, his works suffered considerable distortion in the hands of his sister Elisabeth, who managed his literary estate and twisted his philosophy into a set of ideas supporting Hitler and Nazism.

“While it is true that Nietzsche's writings were used extensively as Nazi propaganda, Nietzsche himself would have been starkly opposed to Nazism. Nietzsche was a fierce opponent of German nationalism, and in spite of his critique of Judaism as a religion, he wrote just as often in praise of Jewish culture. Nietzsche's attachment to Nazism is largely the result of his sister's efforts to edit his work and use it as a means to advance her own social position during the period of National Socialism in Germany." – Douglas Thomas, Associate Professor at USC.

Nietzsche himself would have been disgusted if he was alive to see that his brilliant work was twisted to promote Nazism, something that Nietzsche would have surely hated. Here’s why:

- Nietzsche mistrusted Nationalism. He viewed nationalism as the cloak that many evil people and deeds hide behind. He would have completely opposed any idea of German Nationalism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. In fact, he did so during his lifetime. He said: “Nationalism is desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics.”

- Nietzsche despised Socialism. He said “How ludicrous I find the socialists, with their nonsensical optimism concerning the "good man," who is waiting to appear from behind the scenes if only one would abolish the old "order" and set all the "natural drives" free.” He would have ridiculed the Nazi Socialistic Ideology.

- Nietzsche loathed “The Masses,” or “The Mobs.” Nietzsche generally opposed anything on which a great number of people agreed. He was very suspicious of the social hysteria that was gaining momentum in Europe. And if the Nazis' rise to power, and their rallies, parades, and speeches were not the result of “mob mentality,” then I don’t know what “mob mentality” is. He said: “One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. "Good" is no longer good when one's neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a "common good"! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and in brief, all that is rare for the rare.”

- Nietzsche was NOT an anti-Semite. He said: “"Admit no more Jews! And especially close the doors to the east (and also to Austria)!" thus commands the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and indefinite, so it could easily be blurred or extinguished by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.” - In fact, the mass hysteria and prejudicial suspicion with which certain "groups" were viewing others in Europe at the turn of the century was exactly what Nietzsche warned us about.

It is a travesty that there are some in this world that still believe that Nietzche was a proto-Nazi. What an injustice to a man whose works are as ethical as they are brilliant. Those who contend that his ideas overlap in any way with those of Nazis either do not understand Nietzsche and his work, or do understand him and are shaken by his non-conforming ideas, specifically his ridicule of God, and wish to discredit him by labeling him as a proto-Nazi.

The idea that Nietzsche opposed only the “weaker, Jewish Christian God” is ludicrous. Every theologian (Nietzsche included) knows that the Jewish God is the same supposed entity as the Christian God, and the same as the Islamic God. All three of these religions have their roots as common, which started as the Judaic God. If one of these “Gods” is dead, they are all dead. What these religions differ in is not the identity of their “God,” but in their interpretations of what that God says and wants. In fact, they all agree on the majority of what this God supposedly commands; the Devil is in the details. Thereupon the ridiculousness of all three of these religions is demonstrated. They all pray to the same God, but they all “interpret” his word in a way that is beneficial to their own sect. They each claim to be “the chosen people,” and use their own interpretations to call the others blasphemers, and use God as an excuse to persecute and kill each other. Idiots killing idiots.

Nietzsche’s admiration for the Moores stems from his admiration for Eastern philosophy, as opposed to Western philosophy. He was very critical of the Greco-Roman way of thinking. Their absolute ideas; the ideas of the “greater, common good.” The very ideas, that one could argue, are a forefront of Nazi ideology. Instead, Nietzsche embraced the idea of individuality, and for each person to journey the right path based on their own individual calling. The ideas that Eastern philosophy at times advocates. The ideas that Zarathustra at times promoted. Nietzsche said: “Zarathustra, the great teacher, says, "'This is my way; where is yours?'--thus I answered those who asked me 'the way.' For 'the way'--that does not exist." Nietzsche held great admiration for Zarathustra, and it is clear why. Zarathustra taught a philosophy, an idea, based on ethical principles. Although he did also believe in a God, he never claimed that his message was “the massage of God,” the way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim. This is what elevates Zarathustra and his religion in Nietzsche’s eyes, and in mine. Nietzsche believed that the world would have turned out better if the Persians had gained dominance over Greco-Roman civilization, and Europe would have had a more enlightened and ethical historical pattern.

Perhaps he was right._________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

It is a well known fact that the Nazis tried to distort and pervert Nietzsche’s works to advance their propaganda machine. It is also a well known fact that Nietzsche did not hold to any principles of Nazi ideology. After his death, his works suffered considerable distortion in the hands of his sister Elisabeth, who managed his literary estate and twisted his philosophy into a set of ideas supporting Hitler and Nazism.

Since Nietzsche died well before Hitler took power, it is difficult to know just how he would have reacted. According to a letter sent to his sister Christmas 1887, Nietzsche was very upset by his sister's involvement with antisemitism and I would guess that you are correct that he would have opposed it. However, once ideas are put out for the world, they may have unforseen consequences. I don't know if Nietzsche was really as immoral as he claimed to be or was writing satire, but if taken literally his writings are completely destructive of Western Civilization.

I have seen no indication that Hitler's fascination with Nietzsche was just propaganda. When reading "Hitler's Table Talk" at the same time as Nietzsche's works, it certainly appears that Hitler was very well acquainted with Nietzsche's works and had modeled many of his ideas on Nietzsche's writings. One could argue that Hitler had misunderstood Nietzsche but that is also a hard case for me to make. Just because Hitler didn't follow Nietzsche in every detail doesn't mean he didn't derive many of his basic ideas and assumptions from Nietzsche.

Quote:

Nietzsche loathed “The Masses,” or “The Mobs.” Nietzsche generally opposed anything on which a great number of people agreed. He was very suspicious of the social hysteria that was gaining momentum in Europe. And if the Nazis' rise to power, and their rallies, parades, and speeches were not the result of “mob mentality,” then I don’t know what “mob mentality” is.

Nietzsche's loathing of the mobs can easily be interpreted as antidemocratic. If the masses are usually wrong then democracy guarantees bad government. I believe one of the reasons Nietzsche disliked Christianity so much is because it elevated the "slaves,'"the "little people." Unless he was talking in riddles, the reason Nietzsche praised the Moslems was precisely because of the reasons which causes many of the "little people" such as those who post here to dislike the Mullahs when they chop off the "little people's heads and stone the "weak people" to death. Of course the Roman's had the manly gladiatorial spectacles which the Christians eventually brought to an end and turned the Roman empire into a sissy place.

Quote:

Nietzsche mistrusted Nationalism. He viewed nationalism as the cloak that many evil people and deeds hide behind. He would have completely opposed any idea of German Nationalism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology.

Good point. However, who did Nietzsche consider evil and what deeds did he consider wrong? So far as I can tell, Nietzsche considered the "evil" those who supported the weak and "wrong" acts those of kindness and mercy to the weak. Have I misunderstood the man?

Quote:

Nietzsche despised Socialism. He said “How ludicrous I find the socialists, with their nonsensical optimism concerning the "good man," who is waiting to appear from behind the scenes if only one would abolish the old "order" and set all the "natural drives" free.” He would have ridiculed the Nazi Socialistic Ideology

.

I'm not sure the conclusion necessarily follows from the first part of the paragraph. I believe it was Nietzsche who criticized the socialists because he thought they were bringing in Jewish ideals found in Christianity under another name. Naziism was intended to remedy this failing of the socialists and shifted the emphasis back onto the strong and the elite and away from the unworthy masses who were supposedly championed by the socialists.

Quote:

It is a travesty that there are some in this world that still believe that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi. What an injustice to a man whose works are as ethical as they are brilliant. Those who contend that his ideas overlap in any way with those of Nazis either do not understand Nietzsche and his work, or do understand him and are shaken by his non-conforming ideas, specifically his ridicule of God, and wish to discredit him by labeling him as a proto-Nazi.

I'm curious what Nietzsche's ethics were. I know he valued "honesty" highly but beyond that I wondering what his ethics really were. In a discussion such as this, whether he ridiculed God has to be taken as a separate issue from the teachings found in his books and the effect they had on society. I quote Nietzsche, not because he ridiculed God and that discredits him, but because he was a very brilliant man who accurately stated the morality which necessarily results from ridiculing God. I'm genuinely interested in how you interpret Nietzsche's morality. To me it seems one of his major themes is the value of those who strong people who assert their power to the detriment or even the destruction of the weak.

Quote:

"The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.”

I don't think this was overlooked by Hitler at all. I think the reason he thought it so urgent to destroy the Jews as soon as possible is because they were indeed a strong and successful people. For a social Darwinist who believed nature had decreed the destruction of races to make way for the "uberman," Hitler would have had every reason to hate and fear the Jews. Based on Darwinism, the Germans thought they had it over most races of men who were to be used or destroyed at will, especially those from the heart of Africa, the Slavs and others. The ones they feared were the Jews and the Orientals who they viewed as true competitors and adversaries.

I'm also interested in how an atheist deals with the racism which seems to necessarily flow from Darwin's theories if not counterbalanced by faith in God. Darwin was clearly a very bright man who better than anyone understood the moral implications of his ideas. In the book "Descent of Man" Darwin clearly believed his theory supported scientific racism, extermination of "savage" races and race hygiene. As a theist, it is easy to recognize the tremendous influence natural selection has on life including human life without accepting it as a theory of everything biological. In other words, for a theist, natural selection is an important part of the story but is just one influence among several which defines human life.

How does the atheist deal with this? It seems many thinkers avoid this by trying to deny there is such a thing as racial differences. They claim to support science while making discussions of racial differences thought crimes. Science doesn't seem destined to allow this blindness to persist forever since genetics has progressed to the point that an individual's racial identity can be defined by a small portion of DNA. Race seems to be defined by an entire suite of genes which vary greatly in frequency among different populations. So science will not permit the atheist to avoid this issue forever. Theists can regard all men as equal, not because they all are biologically alike, but because they are all spirit beings.

It is a well known fact that the Nazis tried to distort and pervert Nietzsche’s works to advance their propaganda machine. It is also a well known fact that Nietzsche did not hold to any principles of Nazi ideology. After his death, his works suffered considerable distortion in the hands of his sister Elisabeth, who managed his literary estate and twisted his philosophy into a set of ideas supporting Hitler and Nazism.

Since Nietzsche died well before Hitler took power, it is difficult to know just how he would have reacted. According to a letter sent to his sister Christmas 1887, Nietzsche was very upset by his sister's involvement with antisemitism and I would guess that you are correct that he would have opposed it. However, once ideas are put out for the world, they may have unforseen consequences. I don't know if Nietzsche was really as immoral as he claimed to be or was writing satire, but if taken literally his writings are completely destructive of Western Civilization.

I have seen no indication that Hitler's fascination with Nietzsche was just propaganda. When reading "Hitler's Table Talk" at the same time as Nietzsche's works, it certainly appears that Hitler was very well acquainted with Nietzsche's works and had modeled many of his ideas on Nietzsche's writings. One could argue that Hitler had misunderstood Nietzsche but that is also a hard case for me to make. Just because Hitler didn't follow Nietzsche in every detail doesn't mean he didn't derive many of his basic ideas and assumptions from Nietzsche.

Quote:

Nietzsche loathed “The Masses,” or “The Mobs.” Nietzsche generally opposed anything on which a great number of people agreed. He was very suspicious of the social hysteria that was gaining momentum in Europe. And if the Nazis' rise to power, and their rallies, parades, and speeches were not the result of “mob mentality,” then I don’t know what “mob mentality” is.

Nietzsche's loathing of the mobs can easily be interpreted as antidemocratic. If the masses are usually wrong then democracy guarantees bad government. I believe one of the reasons Nietzsche disliked Christianity so much is because it elevated the "slaves,'"the "little people." Unless he was talking in riddles, the reason Nietzsche praised the Moslems was precisely because of the reasons which causes many of the "little people" such as those who post here to dislike the Mullahs when they chop off the "little people's heads and stone the "weak people" to death. Of course the Roman's had the manly gladiatorial spectacles which the Christians eventually brought to an end and turned the Roman empire into a sissy place.

Quote:

Nietzsche mistrusted Nationalism. He viewed nationalism as the cloak that many evil people and deeds hide behind. He would have completely opposed any idea of German Nationalism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology.

Good point. However, who did Nietzsche consider evil and what deeds did he consider wrong? So far as I can tell, Nietzsche considered the "evil" those who supported the weak and "wrong" acts those of kindness and mercy to the weak. Have I misunderstood the man?

Quote:

Nietzsche despised Socialism. He said “How ludicrous I find the socialists, with their nonsensical optimism concerning the "good man," who is waiting to appear from behind the scenes if only one would abolish the old "order" and set all the "natural drives" free.” He would have ridiculed the Nazi Socialistic Ideology

.

I'm not sure the conclusion necessarily follows from the first part of the paragraph. I believe it was Nietzsche who criticized the socialists because he thought they were bringing in Jewish ideals found in Christianity under another name. Naziism was intended to remedy this failing of the socialists and shifted the emphasis back onto the strong and the elite and away from the unworthy masses who were supposedly championed by the socialists.

Quote:

It is a travesty that there are some in this world that still believe that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi. What an injustice to a man whose works are as ethical as they are brilliant. Those who contend that his ideas overlap in any way with those of Nazis either do not understand Nietzsche and his work, or do understand him and are shaken by his non-conforming ideas, specifically his ridicule of God, and wish to discredit him by labeling him as a proto-Nazi.

I'm curious what Nietzsche's ethics were. I know he valued "honesty" highly but beyond that I wondering what his ethics really were. In a discussion such as this, whether he ridiculed God has to be taken as a separate issue from the teachings found in his books and the effect they had on society. I quote Nietzsche, not because he ridiculed God and that discredits him, but because he was a very brilliant man who accurately stated the morality which necessarily results from ridiculing God. I'm genuinely interested in how you interpret Nietzsche's morality. To me it seems one of his major themes is the value of those who strong people who assert their power to the detriment or even the destruction of the weak.

Quote:

"The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.”

I don't think this was overlooked by Hitler at all. I think the reason he thought it so urgent to destroy the Jews as soon as possible is because they were indeed a strong and successful people. For a social Darwinist who believed nature had decreed the destruction of races to make way for the "uberman," Hitler would have had every reason to hate and fear the Jews. Based on Darwinism, the Germans thought they had it over most races of men who were to be used or destroyed at will, especially those from the heart of Africa, the Slavs and others. The ones they feared were the Jews and the Orientals who they viewed as true competitors and adversaries.

I'm also interested in how an atheist deals with the racism which seems to necessarily flow from Darwin's theories if not counterbalanced by faith in God. Darwin was clearly a very bright man who better than anyone understood the moral implications of his ideas. In the book "Descent of Man" Darwin clearly believed his theory supported scientific racism, extermination of "savage" races and race hygiene. As a theist, it is easy to recognize the tremendous influence natural selection has on life including human life without accepting it as a theory of everything biological. In other words, for a theist, natural selection is an important part of the story but is just one influence among several which defines human life.

How does the atheist deal with this? It seems many thinkers avoid this by trying to deny there is such a thing as racial differences. They claim to support science while making discussions of racial differences thought crimes. Science doesn't seem destined to allow this blindness to persist forever since genetics has progressed to the point that an individual's racial identity can be defined by a small portion of DNA. Race seems to be defined by an entire suite of genes which vary greatly in frequency among different populations. So science will not permit the atheist to avoid this issue forever. Theists can regard all men as equal, not because they all are biologically alike, but because they are all spirit beings.

Amir, I would offer some recomended reading to the Iranian opposition in general, as it would provide a real inside look into America's democratic revolution, and a peek into the mind of an original activist for freedom.

It is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" , it blows Nietzsche concepts away, and had he read it, Nietzsche may have had second thoughts about his ideas.

You might think of "Common sense" as the original "blog"...chuckle...but you'll have to read it to understand, as well as how it was written and distributed in the 1700's

Hi Oppenheimer. These are indeed times that try men's souls. Thank you for your recommendation. I am already somewhat familiar with Thomas Paine's work, and he obviously has had quite worthy contributions to humanity's cause. I also agree that a lot of what he said in relation to the American Revolution can be applicable to our current plight in Iran. I obviously don't agree with everything he said, and especially his theistic viewpoints. I am dubious of the "it blows Nietzsche's concepts away" part though, and I certainly doubt that it would have made Nietzsche have second thoughts about his ideas.

You see, I have yet to hear any argument or read any text that would alter my understanding and appreciation for Nietzsche. But I realize that Nietzsche was an idealist, not a pragmatist. Though I like his ideas, I know that to the extent that he carries his arguments, most of those ideas are not realistically applicable. I think he knew it too._________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

It is a travesty that there are some in this world that still believe that Nietzche was a proto-Nazi. What an injustice to a man whose works are as ethical as they are brilliant. Those who contend that his ideas overlap in any way with those of Nazis either do not understand Nietzsche and his work, or do understand him and are shaken by his non-conforming ideas, specifically his ridicule of God, and wish to discredit him by labeling him as a proto-Nazi.

I stand by that statement.

Quote:

According to a letter sent to his sister Christmas 1887, Nietzsche was very upset by his sister's involvement with antisemitism and I would guess that you are correct that he would have opposed it.

Thank you for that concession.

Quote:

I have seen no indication that Hitler's fascination with Nietzsche was just propaganda

We know that Hitler passed out copies of Nietzsche’s works to his troops as a “morale booster”…is that not propaganda?

Quote:

One could argue that Hitler had misunderstood Nietzsche but that is also a hard case for me to make.

It is, however, a very easy case for me to make:

Quote:

"The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions.”

I don't think this was overlooked by Hitler at all. I think the reason he thought it so urgent to destroy the Jews as soon as possible is because they were indeed a strong and successful people.

This precisely illustrates my point. That while Nietzsche was making one type of argument, in fact praising the Jews, someone like Hitler may have interjected his own perverted interpretation. One can easily take another’s statement with a particular intended meaning, and twist it in a way to illustrate his own point, as Hitler did with Nietzsche.

Quote:

Nietzsche's loathing of the mobs can easily be interpreted as antidemocratic. If the masses are usually wrong then democracy guarantees bad government

My interpretation of Nietzsche’s “mobs” is as follows. I think he viewed the mob mentality as the mentality of a large group of people, which became large because all of its members blindly followed someone else. A group of “followers,” without critical thinking. I think that if each of those individuals had truly undergone self reflection and true analysis, they would not be a part of that “mob.” And if a large group of people or majority has emerged, after each following their individual path, then that majority is not the “mob” that Nietzsche is referring to, but a “flourished society.”

With that understanding of the “mob,” it follows that bad government guarantees an un-democratic state. An ideal democracy would be one which everyone is completely free to nourish their individual ideas, and seek their implementation. A “democracy” which has been propagated by those in power (the government) is not “true democracy,” since it is based on conformed ideas which it is implementing. The members of the “masses” or “mobs” are simply following, instead of promoting their own ideas, which is what an “ideal democracy” should do. I realize of course, as did Nietzsche, that some of his arguments such as this are purely hypothetical and ideal, and not necessarily a realistically achievable society.

Quote:

the reason Nietzsche praised the Moslems was precisely because of the reasons which causes many of the "little people" such as those who post here to dislike the Mullahs when they chop off the "little people's heads and stone the "weak people" to death.

I disagree. Again, this precisely illustrates Nietzsche’s “mobs.” The mob mentality (which has theistic religion as its roots, whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or the “evil trinity” as I refer to them) is at work each and every time a punishment is implemented in the name of God. Quite similar to the barbaric events of torture and death in Europe under the Spanish Inquisition, “in the name of The Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Mullahs justify anything and everything by referring to “God’s will.” All punishments in Islam are carried out because of a “sin,” an act carried out against Allah’s code (a code which quite often contradicts itself by the way). If we followed Nietzsche’s advice, each of us would individually examine the value of chopping off heads and stoning people to death, and carry it out if we ultimately felt that this would be a “moral act.” But I doubt that anyone with unbiased critical thinking abilities would reach such a conclusion and carry out these types of acts. Only when we are handed a pre-fabricated book of rules by a “higher authority” which relinquishes us of our responsibility in such barbaric acts are we able to justify and carry out such evil deeds, with a clear conscience.

Quote:

So far as I can tell, Nietzsche considered the "evil" those who supported the weak and "wrong" acts those of kindness and mercy to the weak. Have I misunderstood the man?

Perhaps you have. Nietzsche considered evil the people who wished to impose their ideas and ideals on others. Those who sought followers, usually for selfish reasons. A few people like that come to my mind…Mohammad, most Popes, Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini, every mullah, etc. The consequence of following such personalities would be evil; the blind and unexamined path. He did not view acts of kindness and mercy as wrong in and of themselves. Rather, the teachings that “we have to be kind and merciful” as a dictum from others, without having reached that conclusion ourselves, and therefore understanding why being “kind and merciful” are good ends.

Quote:

Naziism was intended to remedy this failing of the socialists and shifted the emphasis back onto the strong and the elite and away from the unworthy masses who were supposedly championed by the socialists.

I disagree. I think Nazism was not pure socialism, but had at its foundation strong socialist ideals. A sort of “fascism meeting socialism.” The “unworthy masses” were indeed the power house of the Third Reich.

Quote:

I'm genuinely interested in how you interpret Nietzsche's morality.

Although Nietzsche is viewed by some as an immoralist, his true criticism is directed at the “universal morality.” He argues that the “universal morality” forces values on all members of society which may only be in the interests of one particular group, leaving the rest in denial. He holds that morality, as everything else, depends upon perspective. He criticizes “traditional morality” because it depicts negative concepts such as sin, self-denial, and humility. He follows this by the fact that this “traditional morality” causes us to hide our passions, our desires in life, our drive for empowerment. It denies all the positive aspects of life, our aspirations; our humanity. And of course, he believes this “traditional morality” has arisen and become the “universal” code by the concept of God.

Nietzsche believes in embracing “individualism” and the natural ideal rather than the artificial. He calls for each person to truly examine “the path,” instead of being told what “the path” ought to be. The path itself is as important as the destination. He is confident that if given the choice, most people will choose the various paths which will arrive at the destination: a state of happiness and fulfillment. That state of fulfillment however, is one that society as a whole will ultimately reap.

There is a restriction that Nietzsche places on the type of values we should hold, by contending that our values must come from within, not from without. That our values must be created by our own self-reflection, not from outside influences. I would say that this does not make those values any less “moral” or “ethical.” The tendencies of human beings will naturally gravitate them to the “moral” and “ethical” path. The belief system that has been reached by self reflection and discovery will be, I think, much more solid than one which has been handed to us unexamined, and justified by the phrase “because God says so!”

These are my interpretations of Nietzsche. Ultimately, it appears that we each have a different interpretation of him. But this is probably expected. After all, philosophy forces us to view issues from a different perspective. Philosophy is comprised of various ideas, none of which can be construed as “the absolute truth.” If it were “billed” as the “absolute truth,” it would be called…”gospel.”

Quote:

I'm also interested in how an atheist deals with the racism which seems to necessarily flow from Darwin's theories if not counterbalanced by faith in God. Darwin was clearly a very bright man who better than anyone understood the moral implications of his ideas.

My posts have no references to Darwin. Although I know that Nietzsche did take some influences from Darwin, I am only addressing my interpretation of Nietzsche, not Darwin. What I know of Darwin is that he was obviously very brilliant, and made one of the most profound contributions to science: the theory of evolution. A theory which has to this day stood the test of time. I am very familiar with his scientific theory. I am not, however, at great depth familiar with his personal ideologies, and I do not wish to render an opinion on a topic which I am not versed.

Quote:

How does the atheist deal with this? It seems many thinkers avoid this by trying to deny there is such a thing as racial differences. They claim to support science while making discussions of racial differences thought crimes. Science doesn't seem destined to allow this blindness to persist forever since genetics has progressed to the point that an individual's racial identity can be defined by a small portion of DNA. Race seems to be defined by an entire suite of genes which vary greatly in frequency among different populations. So science will not permit the atheist to avoid this issue forever. Theists can regard all men as equal, not because they all are biologically alike, but because they are all spirit beings.

Is the glass half empty, or half full? Do the DNA profiles of humans make us more different, or more similar? One may look at the differences of individuals’ DNA to illustrate a profound difference. I would look at the similarities in our DNA to illustrate the opposite.

I think that having a biochemistry degree allows me to understand the intricacies of DNA as well as anyone else. Each person has a particular DNA profile at the moment of fertilization, as a zygote. During development, and especially later during our lifespan our various cells’ DNA are prone to replication errors, or mutations, whether spontaneously, or due to environmental factors such as chemicals, radiation, etc. So, the “genetic person” during our later life is not the same “genetic person” who was born; at least not at the level of every cell. Does that mean that this older person is not the same as the younger? Of course not. For the most part, these differences are minute, and negligible.

By the same token, though different races have differences in their DNA, those differences are relatively minute. All humans share on the order of 99.99% of their DNA with all other humans. So, is the glass 0.01% empty, or 99.99% full? Shall we focus on the 0.01% difference, or on the 99.99% similarity? I think the details of DNA show us the precise opposite of your point. Not that various races are biologically and genetically different, but instead extremely similar. DNA actually rains on a racist’s parade.

Let’s take the DNA argument further. We share about 95% of our DNA with chimps. I think that genetically, that makes us more similar than different. Somewhere in that 5% is the inherent human difference. Somewhere in that 5% of DNA difference, apparently a “spirit” has been encoded. Unless, …do chimps also have spirits? And if they do, is there a chimp heaven and hell where their spirits will go to when they die?

Quote:

Theists can regard all men as equal, not because they all are biologically alike, but because they are all spirit beings.

I don’t think all theists regard all men as equal, and not all atheists do either. That would be a folly of both, on an individual basis, as the case may be. I can only speak for myself, to say that I regard all men’s rights as equal, regardless of each individual’s difference in physical characteristics, beliefs, or aptitudes. However, since I do not believe in “spirits,” I believe what binds us is our commonality; our humanity. I don’t think that somewhere in that 5% genetic difference a “spirit” magically appeared. But I do believe that in that 5% difference a higher intellectual ability developed, which gave us among other things, self-awareness, love, ethics, and empathy. Some primatologists might argue that chimps also have, on a more primitive level, the ability to empathize. I wouldn’t be surprised. In fact, a chimp’s ability to empathize may surpass that of a religious zealot who murders and tortures others “in the name of God.”

All human beings are in truth akin
All in creation share one origin
When fate allots a member pangs and pains
No ease for other members then remains
If unperturbed, another’s grief canst scan,
Thou are not worthy of the name of man.

-Saadi Shirazi_________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

It was the effect of "Common sense" in a practical way to light a fire in men's mind in colonial America that caused me to say he "blew Nietzche away" I agree that not all of his ideas were correct, but then no one is right 100% of the time.

Obviously Hitler twisted a great many things, philosophy was only one aspect of this. He twisted the law, he tristed the truth, he twisted treaties, and he twisted people's minds via a "new deal" in Gemany, using the same scapegoat methods Antar is using today.